Researcher and supervisor(s)
Phd-student Gaby Rasters, Nijmegen Business school
Dr. T.van der Smagt, Nijmegen Business School, University Nijmegen
Prof. B.Dankbaar, Nijmegen Bussiness School, University Nijmegen
Dr.A.Dumay, Virtuality group, TNO-fel

Research title
Organisational and communicational demands on ‘co-operation at a distance’

“It is through the process of enactment that people, not electronic communication media, bring about richness that they experience in their communications.” (Weick,K.E. 1979)
 
 

Assumptions

Starting point of the research are the following assumptions:

Rigid hierarchies are changing into flat and modular structures. Traditional organisational boundaries are dissolving, creating symbiotic and interconnected enterprises with a network structure. Firms must be fast, flexible, responsive and knowledge intensive. This calls for replacing traditional bureaucratic approaches to organisation with more adaptive, self-designing networkorganisations. (Nohria & Eccles).
Through the gradual dissolution of temporal and spatial constraints, technical infrastructures are revolutionising market places and enterprises. Changing organisational structures are made possible by the use of information technology. (Wigand, R. 1997 ).
Geographical dispersion makes co-location more difficult and compels co-operation within (and between) teams to take place in a non co-located way; for instance in virtual teams.

• Networkorganisations have become very popular. Because of the increased flexibility, companies have to withdraw on their centercompetences and have to work in co-operation with other companies. Also the wish of scaling up leads to fusion’s, take overs, of organisations within the same competence domain. In both cases there is a bitter need of working intensively together over organisational, spatial and political borders.
• Organisational environments become more complex and dynamic: this leads to complex problem solving and highly interrelated (reciprocal) tasks, which ask for complex and thus more expensive co-ordination mechanisms.
• Within these organisations we find more distributed groups who have to deal with these complex problems and tasks: co-ordination on distance further increases the costs (travelling a lot, scheduling problems for appointments);
• The received view is that mutual tuning and co-ordination will work best in teams. Co-location is most of the time not an option, so working on a distance is the only alternative.
• The developments in information- and communication technology raise more opportunities for this communication, co-ordination and collaboration at a distance.
• But organisational researcher are pessimistic about the use of distributed virtual teams. They say: “Rich media”; those that transmit higher levels of non-verbal cues- are more appropriate in less ambiguous, routine situations. (Daft&Lengel, 1994, Nohria& Eccles. 1992). Face-to-face contacts is seen as the ideal form of communication and co-operation. So the technological opportunities, the modern computer mediated communication means, are not fully utilised.

The ultimate goal of the thesis is to develop an insight in the role that modern information- and communication technology (ICT) plays in co-operation on a distance.
For this to happen we have to investigate the assumptions about a relation between the organisational structure and the information and communication technology.

In the literature we find different opinions about the question if co-operation within (or between) teams can work well when face-to-face contacts are being replaced by Computer Mediated Communication (CMC). Especially certain business scientists (prominently, Nohria & Eccles, 1994) have their doubts. For them, face-to-face relations play an essential role in the development of trust between team members. The closer CMC approaches the face-to-face ideal the more useful it is.
The viability and effectiveness of this electronic network will depend critically on an underlying network of social relationship based on face-to-face interaction. They must negotiate a shared understanding of the context, discover sources of information, decide who can be depended on distributed work among these people , and develop rules and norms for further action and monitoring progress toward their goals.
So according to Nohria & Eccles CMC can not replace relations that are based on face-to-face communication [1]:

1. In face-to-face interaction , the participants are always copresent- at the same time and place. The lack of copresence means that all kinds of social context clues are filtered out.
2. Face-to face captures the entire bandwidth of human interaction. Both physical and psycho-emotional (such as discomfort, ease, attraction, and so on)
3. Relative to electronically mediated exchange, the structure of face-to-face interaction offers an unusual capacity for interruption, repair, feedback and learning.

A goal of this Ph.D.- project is to find proof that both views have their shortcomings because there is no explicit confrontation of demands on the one side (demands that are asked by the different forms of mutual tuning and co-ordination) and opportunities that are given by different kinds of communication contexts on the other.
For the different forms of mutual tuning (compare monologue vs. dialogue, competitive vs. complementary relations) it is simple to prove that they proceed differently and that trust gets an entirely different meaning. Consequently the demands on the context within which is communicated, shall differ (van der Smagt 1998). That face-to-face relations broadly comply with these demands is questioned by none. But as long as the demands are not explicitly and accurately described it will remain unclear precisely which aspects of the face-to-face relation play a role. And as long as this is not clear, the question if face-to-face relations form a necessary condition for coherence within or between teams cannot be answered. Neither is the question answered if other contexts of communication (especially C.M.C.) can satisfy under certain conditions these demands as well and enable co-operation ‘on a distance’ (in virtual teams). It is this explicit and systematic confrontation of demands and possibilities that forms the main subject of this project.
 
 

Communication theories and technologies

Face-to-face communication is seen as a very ‘rich’ way of communicating, because there are no ‘cues’ filtered out. (cues like bodylangauge and facial expression) When you communicate face-to-face with someone you can look the other actor/team in the eyes and see if he/she is trustworthy. Trust is an important factor in this discussion. Trust can only be reached by using ‘rich’ media is a common view. But in this view there is only room for one kind of trust. We want to show there are different forms of trust, they differ from situation to situation. By doing this we are able to show organisations that in certain ways of communication and co-operation they don’t have to relay on ‘rich communication media’ or old fashioned ways of communicating for getting the job done.

Researchers (Daft and Lengel) argue that ICT means are more useful to the support of co-operation and co-ordination when they are closer to the face-to-face ideal. But those researchers are also pessimistic about this ideal, because the ICT means that are used yet, are not even close to a face-to-face ideal. So, the role that ICT can play in co-operation on a distance is not very big. We want to investigate if the claim of those pessimistic researchers is justified. They state that non co-located teams (so without face-to-face contacts) can not satisfactionly work together in non-routine matters.

The information richness theory (IRT, Daft and Lengel 1986), suggest that richness (or leanness) is an intrinsic objective property of information technologies that serve as communication media and managerial use of these media can be described and explained by this intrinsic property. The IRT theory is developed as an answer on the question: why do organisations process information? Daft and Lengel say that communication richness (or leanness) is an invariant, objective property of communication media. On the ground of this theory a manager could take decisions about the use electronic communication. It provided a conceptual framework to rank the different communication media from rich to lean [3].

“Communication media vary in the capacity to process rich information. In order of decreasing richness, the media classifications are: 1.face-to-face, 2. Telephone, 3. personal documents such as letters and memo’s, 4.impersonal written documents, 5. numeric documents.
The reason for richness differences include the medium’s capacity for immediate feedback, the number of cues and channels utilised, personalisation and language variety Face-to-face is the richest medium because it provides immediate feedback so that interpretation can be checked. Face-to-face also proves multiple cues via bodylanguage and tone of voice, and message content is expressed in natural language. Rich media facilitate equivocality reduction by enabling managers to overcome different frames of reference and by providing the capacity to process complex, subjective messages. Media of low richness process fewer cues and restrict feedback, and are less appropriate for resolving equivocal issues. However, an important point is that media of low richness are effective for processing well understood messages and standard data. (Daft and Lengel, 1986, p.560)”

Daft and Lengel (1986) developed thus a distinction between supporting communication technologies on the basis of the ‘media richness’, or similarity to face-to-face situations. They distinguish computer systems, audio systems, video systems and face-to-face interaction. Information richness depends on the characteristics of the technology (capacity for immediate feedback, number of cues, the number of channels utilised). The main predictions are that for co-ordinating more complex tasks, richer media are used, and that when this ‘fit’ between complexity and media-richness is violated, the performance (decision time, amount of consensus) decreases.

Regarding the media richness concept, in which CMC are rated and scaled from rich to lean, we have to ask ourselves if this rating will fit on every organisation? The richest way of communicating according to the IRT is face-to-face communication. But when actors are hanging upon eachothers lips, the communication can become very lean. They might talk a lot, but not about matters regarding the content.
Since 1986, IRT has been influential in both information system research and practise. However, recent empirical studies have presented evidence that calls into question the validity of IRT, and it’s framework for managerial decision making about electronic communication media (El-Shinnawy and Markus 1992, Kinney and Watson 1992; Lee 1994)
Markus (1994) did a lot quantitative and qualitative research on the communicational behaviour of managers. The outcomes of this research were in contradiction with the IRT. “the actual media use behaviour was inconsistent with the [information richness] theory. In particular, managers, especially senior managers, used the [electronic mail]medium more intensively than the [information richness] theory predicts and in a manner that the theory regards as ineffective and hence unlikely” (p.518).
There are also other empirical studies that contradict the IRT’s arguments. Markus presented in 1991 evidence of e-mail communication that, even according to IRT’s own criteria, are rich, not lean. Lee (1994) has also presented evidence of how managerial communication using e-mail was still capable of being rich, despite the fact that e-mail has all the lean media characteristics that IRT predicts would lead to lean communication. (Ngwenyama and Lee, 1997, p. 4)

Ngwenyama and Lee have developed a new theory to look at communication richness. In this theory the social aspects are more important than the technological aspects of communication. (which is the case in the IRT of Daft and Lengel) To understand the Critical Social theory (CST) of Ngwenyama and Lee we first have to look at some other social theories [4].

• Positivist view: The meaning of the message is univocal for sender and receiver. The quality of the medium determines the clarity of the message. The more cues and the more bandwidth how more clear the message is.

• Interpretative view: The message is not something objective, it can be seen as an interpretation. The receiver can interpretate the message. The sender is not in control of how the message will be received. By sending triggers the sender can in a way guide the message in a certain way. An ideal situation would be that the sender and receiver both know that sending and receiving a message a construction proces is. They know that each will give a different meaning, interpretation, to the message. It would be ideal if the actor can find out the construction process of the other actor. This will create a mutual understanding, it will create insight in the way a message in received and interpreted. But it will also give insight in why the message is send.

• Critical Social Theory

This theory goes further than the interpretative view. It is not enough to understand eachother and have an insight in the way the other receives or send a message. No, each actor can claim the meaning by performing a validity check. So it goes further than mutual understanding about a message. But it will ask: is this actor in his right to send this message. This validity check can be performed in a strategic way or dialogical way. From this study it follows that not the medium in itself, but the way in which actors use the medium is the most relevant predictor for their performance.

Social structure of Organisations

Rich media is wanted in situations were there is a lack of trust and there were is no on dialogue based communication. Situations with great uncertainties about the intentions, plans, ideas and actions of the other actor(s).
‘Rich’ media – those that transmit higher levels of non-verbal cues – are more appropriate in ambiguous or relational communication situations, ‘lean’ media are more appropriate in less ambiguous, routine situations” (Kayang, Wotring & Forrest, 1996).

Organisations who fit the model of competitive relations- hierarchic co-ordination, one-way communication need a lot of trust. Actors have to look eachother in the eyes and watch the non-verbal cues closely. Using lean media to communicate is not ideal than, because a lot of cues are filtered out there. For example, using e-mail to communicate will not give you insight in the facial expression of the other actor.

In organisations that are based on complementary relations (opposite to the above described competitive relations) do not need to relay on rich media for co-operation and communication. A complementary relation is based on trust and dialogue based communication. There is less need for detailed, strategically information about the other actors in the sense of non verbal cues and body language. So organisations that are based on complementary relations can search for CMC means that fit to their organisational structure and specific situation, without holding on to face-to-face norm.
The choice of the communication media can vary corresponding the specific situation and the specific individual need of the co-operating actors.

A collaboration based on complementary relations supposes, from situation to situation, different demands of communication technology. For this it will have different criteria for what is ‘rich’ and what is ‘lean’ communication. We want to find what the demands from the social structure and the organisational structure are for the way of communicating.
 

• Problemstatement

• Central questions

The richer the media, the richer the co-ordination in and between teams?

The more face-to-face meetings in team, the more it will increase the trust in eachother?

How richer the medium the more trust it will provide?

Does a difference between competitive and complementary relations mean that there are also different demands for communication and communication technology?

What are the demands for communication and communication technology in competitive relations?

What are the demands for communication and communication technology in complementary relations?

What are the demands for communication and communication technology in general trust?

What are the demands for communication and communication technology in aspect trust?

Where is the limit of shared knowledge and secrets? (especially in virtual teams)

Concurrency and context are important, but do you need face-to-face contacts for it?

• Central notions

Research question and objective

In the light of these assumptions the following research question has been formulated:

The ultimate goal of the thesis is to develop an insight in the role that modern information- and communication technology (ICT) plays in co-operation on a distance.
For this to happen we have to investigate the assumptions about a relation between the organisational structure and the information and communication technology.

In answering this research question we pursue the following research objective:

The ultimate goal of the thesis is thus to develop an insight in the way on complementary relations based teams can co-operate and communicate at a distance using (and supported by) information- and communication technology.

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses have been formulated:

We argue that different organisationstructure use different communication media accordingly to their social structure.

Relevance of research

The research is relevant for a number of research directions, namely:

• This research will give insight in the role of CMC in co-ordination intensive non-co-located organisations.
• It will hand out recommendations for organisations working at a distance at two levels; 1. information structure level: why, when and how to use which communication medium, 2. social structure level: how to act (strategically or communicative) accordingly to the organisationstructure (competitive or complementary). Those two levels will be compared with one and other, in a way that the demands for communication as well for co-operation will be set clear.
• This research can give TNO-FEL in Den Haag recommendations towards the development of software and tools in supporting communication and co-operation..
• an empirical attribution to the field of CSCW network and the Virtual Organisation network. on the CSCW network are ongoing discussions about the use of computer mediated communication means. On the Virtual Organisation there is discussion group called VOTALK with discussion about the working of virtual teams.

Because we want to answer our research question by studying organisational reality the research instruments used will be by case studies. Case research is formulated by Yin [5] as follows:

"A case study is an empirical inquiry that:

• investigates a contemporary phenomenon within it's real-life context ; when
• the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and
• multiple sources of evidence are used"

• the phenomenon has to be placed in a historical perspective.

Schedule

An overview of the research activities in the next four years is presented below.
 

Year	Activity
1998 Sept.	literature research
1999	extensive literature search writing proposal case study: TNO-Telematica- Oce
2000	second case study: MARS theory building
2001 until September 2002	prescriptive case(s) writing thesis

Notes

1. literatuurbundel: Electronische communicatie en organisatievormen, T.vander Smagt, 1998, p.61
2. Townsend, A.M , DeMarie, S.M. and Hendrickson, A.R. (1998). Virtual teams: technology and the workplace of the future. In: Academy of Management Executive, 1998. Vol.12, No.3)
3. Ngwenyama, O.K and Lee, A.S (1997). Communication richness in electronic mail: critical social theory and the contextuality of meaning. http://www.saturn.vcu.edu/~aslee/ngwlee97.htm
4. Ngwenyama, O. K. and Lee.A.L. (1997). Communication richness in electronic mail: crittical social theory and the contextuality of meaning. http://www.saturn.vcu.edu/~aslee/ngwlee97.htm. University of Minnesota. p.5-7
5. Yin, R.K. (1989). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Beverly Hills: Sage. P.23)

Literature

Beyer, H , Holtzblatt, K. (1996). Apprenticing with the customer: A collaborative Approach to Requirements Definition.

Daft, R.L., Lengel, R.H., (1986). Organisational information requirements, media richness and structural design, Management Science, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 554-571.

Desanctis G., Gallupe, R.B. (1987). A foundation for the study of group decision support systems, Management Science, vol. 33, no. 5, pp.589-609.

DeSanctis G., Poole, M.S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: adaptive structuration theory, Ogranisation Science, vol. 5, no.2, pp.121-174.

Galbraith, J.R. (1974). Organisation design: an information processing view, Interfaces, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 28-36.

Guzzo, R.A, Salas, E. (1995). Team effectiveness and desicion making in organisations. Jossey-Bass Publishers. San Francisco.

Hirokawa, R.Y, Poole, M.S. (1996). Communication and group decision making. SAGE Publications.

Koningsveld, H, Mertens, J. (1986). Communicatief en Strategisch handelen: inleiding tot de handelingstheorie van Habermas. Muiderberg: Coutinho

Kunneman, H. (1985). Habermas’ theorie van het communicatieve handelen. Boom: Meppel.

Lipnack, J, Stamps, J. (1997). Virtual Teams: Reaching Across Space, Time, and Organisations with Technology. John Wiley & Sons inc.

McGrath, J.E., Hollingshead, A.B.(1994). Groups interacting with technology: ideas, evidence, issues and an agenda, Sage Publications, London.

Ngwenyama, O.K., Lee, A.S. (1997). Communication Richness in Electronic mail: Critical Social Theory and the Contextuality of meaning, http://saturn.vcu.edu/~aslee/ngwlee97.htm

Nijhuis, R.J.H., Sol, H.G. (1996).Working apart together, research proposal, Delft University of Technology, Delft.

Nohria, N, Eccles, R. (1992). Face-to-face: Making network Organisations Work. In: Nohria, N. & Eccles, R. (eds.), Networks and organisations: Structure, Form and Action. Boston.

Orlikowski W.J. (1995). Evolving with Notes: organisational Change around Groupware Technology. Working Paper.

Patti, A, Gilbert, J. (1998). Hoe samengeplaatse teams de productontwikkeling versnellen. Holland/Belgium Management Review. Nr. 59.

Riley, A., Team communication, analyses of the importance of communication on teams and techniques to facilitate communication, Mgmt 455, Managerial communication skills, Lehigh University, 1996, on: http//www.lehigh.edu/~incbc/resources/research/riley.htm, 9^th March 1998

Towsend, A.M., DeMarie, S.M.& Hendrickson, A.R. (1998). Virtual teams: technology and the workplace of the future. Academy of Management Executive. Vol.12, No.3.

Wigand, R.T., Picot, A., Reichwald, R. (1997). Information, Organisation and Management : Expanding Markets and Corporate Boundaries, Wiley & Sons, 1997
 
 

Back to the CommOrg Page